USA in Afghanistan-A Long Term Strategic View

Agha Hamayun Amin

While it remains debatable whether 9/11 was a deliberate conspiracy to justify US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq or an act of Al Qaeda; the United States of America inherited a historical situation in shape of 9/11 and made use of it to justify launching of a major Neo Operation Barbarossa to occupy the fertile the east. This article is based on my experiences of 13 years service in the army, 34 years of study of military history including three stints as editor of three journals in Afghanistan and Pakistan and three years of continuous and many more years of interrupted stay in Afghanistan. During the course of my last continuous stay in Afghanistan from 2004 till 2008 I worked as sub contractor with many donor agencies and repeatedly came into contact with many NATO and US military officials. My projects were located in the heart of Taliban country i.e. Kandahar,Ghazni,Helmand,Farah,Zabul and Kunar. With the stated experience my perceptions of Afghanistan may be different in finer aspects from many other views, which may be outwardly neat and logical but lack the solid conviction and finesse stemming out of an exhaustive study of military history and an on ground experience not depending on what you may read or hear from the print or the live media. There is one similarity in US and USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Both happened because of an apparently third party action which was used by policy makers in both countries to justify an attack. Here the similarity ends. The USSR entered Afghanistan in a bipolar world where major powers decided to oppose the USSR tooth and nail and with equal and subsequently greater might. The USA entered Afghanistan in a unipolar world when no major power supported anti US insurgents. Further the USA entered Afghanistan with long term strategic plans while the USSR entered Afghanistan to support a leftist regime with whom it had a treaty of cooperation. The USSR did not enlarge its offensive after Afghanistan but the USA is continuously enlarging its offensive with the major Phase Two being the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ongoing 2007-9 mysterious upsurge in Pakistan. Mysterious I maintain because of what I saw in Afghanistan from 2004 till 2008 and till to date. The USA was lucky to have in Pakistan on the eve of its arrival a military tin pot dictator who was ready to sell his soul to even the devil to preserve his illegitimately usurped seat of power. In retrospect as I analyse now the US Afghan war followed the following distinct phases:–

•        An initial arm twisting manoeuvre of Pakistan’s illegitimate military regime to secure ground, aerial and    logistic passage. This happened from October 2001 and continues till to date.

•        Pressurising the illegitimate Pakistani military regime into launching operation in Waziristan when there was no insurgency in Waziristan from 2002 till 2006 thus destabilising a most strategically sensitive region of Pakistan and internally dividing Pakistan. • Strengthening US military presence in Afghanistan in terms of constructing permanent air bases for possible future long term use to dominate the region including Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, Chinese Singkiang and India.

•       Creation of an intelligence operation base from where third party penetration operations could be mounted to infiltrate any extremist or ethnic group in conflict with its parent country’s federal government. The prime immediate target being Pakistan, while Iran, China, Central Asian States may possibly be later phase targets. This phase started from November 2001 and continues till to date.

•       Forcing the illegitimate Musharraf military regime to mount another military operation in Mohmand and Bajaur thus destabilising another strategically sensitive region of Pakistan and to discredit the Pakistani armed forces. This started from 2005 and continues till to date. A dispassionate reader may form his own conclusions from the following observations that I have:–

•       At no stage from 2001 till to date did the US or NATO forces mount any major military operation inside Afghanistan against Taliban. Actually the force ratios of US and NATO forces do not allow this in any case.

•      All major US Army and USAID and NATO construction contracts were sub contracted at third and fourth tiers to contractors who were Taliban after sunset and contractors after sun rise. All this happened with US military officials in full knowledge.

•      While major Taliban infiltration from Pakistan to Afghanistan takes place in the 1400 km tract in between Gomal River and Chaghai Hills the US Government at no stage pressurised the Pakistani illegitimate military regime of Musharraf to interdict this influx!

•      All the US pressure on Pakistan was to take military action in Waziristan from where hardly 10 % of influx into Afghanistan was taking place! Later the US pressure also expanded to include Bajaur and Mohmand who have a very short less than 300 km border with Pakistan.

•     Thus while major Taliban attacks were taking place on US and NATO forces in Helmand, Kandahar and Zabul who have no border with Waziristan , all along the US Government was pressurizing the Pakistani Government to attack the Taliban in Waziristan which accounts for less than 5 % damage to any US or NATO forces in Afghanistan in terms of length of border contagious with provinces where maximum US and NATO casualties took place !

•      Till 2007 I could travel from Kabul on one end to Herat on the far end via Kandahar in a private car without any weapon safely. But not after 2007.Suddenly everything changed and USA and NATO forces took no action from 2007 till to date to secure this area !

•      Despite the fact that no major US casualties took place in Khost and Paktika provinces adjacent to Wazisristan and Kunar and Nigrahar Provinces adjacent to Khyber Agency, Bajaur and Mohmand and Dir/Swat the USA spent a fortune on bases and infrastructure building in these provinces. Construction profits were made by the very tribes fighting the Pakistan Army in Waziristan, Khyber, Bajaur and Mohmand.

•      8-No container taking supplies to NATO at the height of Taliban operations in Afghanistan was attacked in any area of Pakistan in between 2001 and 2008 but in 2008 mysterious attacks started!

Conclusions

•      The USA did not come to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. • The USA by design destabilised Waziristan, Khyber, Bajaur and Mohmand to create a war like situation to justify international action to denuclearise Pakistan.

•      Pakistan needs to drastically revise its foreign policy making a clean break with USA and NATO and making peace with India, alliance with Russia and China and Iran while preserving its nuclear deterrent.

•      Lastly its worthwhile to quote a US statesman. To be a friend of USA is one thing but to be its friend is deadly!

•      The USA is part of Pakistan’s problems. Friendship with USA is not the solution. But who will bell the cat. Who will make the resolute decision! No peace in sight till Pakistani statesmen and generals stop sleeping with the devil!

Editor’s Note

I consider myself fortunate to have had frequent discourses with Agha Hamayun Amin spanning past many years on the situation in Afghanistan and South Asia. Though we disagreed on many counts, he now seems to allude to my assessments of US designs in the region. It is further reinforced by USA’s preferential treatment to India in affairs of Afghanistan and parity against Pakistan despite the fact that India had no role in the Afghan resistance to USSR; provision of nuclear umbrella to India; tacitly approving Indian blockage of River Chenab; and looking the other way while India carries out covert operations inside Pakistan.

Samson Simon Sharaf

US WAR OF ATTRITION

Brigadier (retired) Samson Simon Sharaf

The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil.

Hans Joachim Morgenthau

It is past seven years since US War against terrorism in Afghanistan. Rather than assume the nature of large scale counter insurgency operations supported by intelligence networks, it has degenerated into a military intervention with force levels insufficient even for peace enforcement. The composition of US and allied troops and the manner in which they operate raise questions. Just like the 90s when there was no desire to curtail Osama or his brand of Islam, there appear no visible political engagements in tandem with such selective operations to suggest that a negotiated end is in sight. As the focus shifts from Afghanistan to Pakistan, attrition through time delay is the nature of this war. Pakistan’s establishment was neither prepared nor contemplated such a contingency when it gave un-stinted support to USA.

Across the Durand line, the conflict has gripped the entire NWFP and now threatens Punjab. Some may argue that this ‘Burnout Policy’ has served well to precipitate resistance in Pakistan; to identify pockets of militancy; and its support amongst people and the establishment. To that extent, one may partially agree but add that in doing so, USA has wilfully chosen to draw Pakistan into a chaos akin to Afghanistan in the 90s. These hardliners also elect to ignore that these seven years have served to create and increase anti-US sentiments in Pakistan. This dynamic itself has the potential to provide the water in which the fish need to swim. Pakistan is in the midst of difficult choices.

The coinage AF-Pak means that Pakistan is now relegated to a strife ridden ungovernable state and therefore a legitimate war zone; Durand Line means nothing; and USA will exercise its right of direct and indirect military intervention in Pakistan. It also reflects that Pakistan’s policy of appeasement of USA has failed to cater to Pakistan’s legitimate concerns, leaving no choice but to hedge its interests. The vanguard of this new policy will be the symbolic drone attacks widened into new areas, increased pressure on the political and military establishment and more violence, particularly in Punjab. In such state of affairs, Pakistan’s leadership, economics and national integration are equally vulnerable. In the background and away from the eyes of observers, the dirty game of intelligence and counter intelligence operations will continue with ferocity and mutual betrayal. Politicians ready to sell their mothers will be engaged and mutual erosion of the state of Pakistan will continue.

Even an ordinary Pakistani has allied with the growing perception that this so called war for democracy, human values and popular enfranchisement is in fact a frontal assault on Pakistan’s political, defence and intelligence establishments. There is also a growing perception that USA in cahoots with political minimalists of Pakistan is on a dangerous road to curtail the over arching role of Punjab in the politic body. If agendas such as these are accomplished, Pakistan’s geography and the nuclear story will become a tale of the past. Pakistanis will be their own Brutus.

Rather than react to every bit of news, Pakistanis need to understand that it is the backstage activity that affects us most. For long, US state and non state actors have run in overdrive to send mixed signals to Pakistan. Pakistan’s fragile political system, political immoralities and quest by some to put self before the state provide a happy hunting ground for such notions to breed. Amazingly, this activity peaks just before exchanges of high profile visits. Dramatisation follows a familiar pattern. The most recent to cite are President Obama’s desire while in Czech Republic for a nuclear free world; report of a US research organisation suggesting recognition of Pakistan’s nuclear capability; sharp shooters in State Department, Pentagon and CENTCOM focussing on criticism of Pakistan Army and ISI, interspersed with drone strikes. The recent hall mark was the visit to Pakistan by US special envoy Richard Halbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen wielding sticks and carrots and select academicians doing round of universities least to mention media mouth pieces. The epitome was the press conference by Halbrooke and Mullen in India with an implied threat to Pakistan.

In this context, much written by me on the nature of Pakistan’s present and future war and attrition is validated. I would now expand my assessment to two very important issues that I mentioned for record but did not deliberate earlier.

If eradication of militancy is indeed the goal of USA and its allies in Afghanistan, then why are they not contemplating a full fledged counter insurgency operation in the areas they control? Despite all the advantages of technology and precision, Taliban ascendancy in Afghanistan is increasing. NATO and US forces are confined to well guarded urban centres and venture out on selective basis in which more civilians than militants are killed. All open spaces are dominated by militants. Present military composition in the area suggests that USA will remain in the region for a long duration. This in turn complicates Pakistan’s security and concerns need to be addressed.

USA is here to stay for a long time. Their need for pivots against a rising China and resurgent Russia demand that they control strategic spaces that threaten these rising centres of power as well as deny them strategic access to the Indian Ocean. Pakistan at cross roads of geography is also in the midst of conflicts that geography creates. Just like Islam was used to threaten the godless communism, the radical Islam is now being used in the generic names of Al Qaeda and Taliban to further long term geo-strategic objectives. As the notion of AF-Pakistan assumes currency we shall see the addition of LET and others to this coinage. India will be used to downgrade Pakistan’s military, agrarian and economic potential. Space for political manoeuvring and bargaining will be gradually denied. Rise of militancy in Pakistan serves this game plan and policy makers in Pakistan ought to realise this.

Pakistan is also vulnerable economically. Surging oil prices followed by an international economic meltdown have added to Pakistan’s fragility. Home grown speculators and liberal economic managers have played a treacherous game with Pakistan’s sovereignty. A fiercely competitive domestic economy that withstood thirteen years of nuclear sanctions has been reduced to consumerism. Trillions of free floating rupees have been lost out to economic liberalism. Pakistan’s most competitive export sectors have since been edged out. Devaluation of rupee, rising electricity and energy in-puts have made production non competitive. Industrial led growth is now a fairy tale. Given the situation, these difficulties are most likely to worsen. Industrial layoffs are endemic and chances of complementary alliances for economic gains dwindling. In due course these could lead to discontentment, labour unrests and breed radicalisation. The most affected are the industrial centres of Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Sialkot and Karachi. Though Pakistan ultimately suffers, the worst hit is Punjab, the bread basket of Pakistan.

Insofar as Punjab, there appears commonality of interests between the political minimalist of Pakistan and USA. It is Pakistan’s biggest province in terms of population, economic growth and representation in the national fabric. It is argued that even in vulnerable times such as these the federation needs to be strengthens albeit more powers to the smaller federating units. In backdoors, devolution of Punjab is seen most expedient. In the post 2008 dispensation, Punjab was singled out for manipulation and political instability. Had it not been for a national movement spearheaded by lawyers, it would have deteriorated to chaos. Federalism aside, Punjab must be seen as the heart of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s sectarian militants known for their ferocity inside Pakistan and as far away as Eastern Europe, sit in Punjab, like a time bomb ticking away. Over the course of thirty years, these hardliners have learnt the art to manipulate many masters and to be controlled by none. Rise of militancy in Punjab’s urban centres is no coincidence and a tell tale sign of events to come. The murder of Daniel Pearl is a testimony to where their support and ideology comes from. The intelligence agencies and the government need to keep a vigil on these militant groups, their off shore lines of funding, local businesses and foreign handlers from all across the world. Intelligence establishments world over have used them when needed; yet the axe must fall only on those who align with the ideology of Pakistan.

The damage to Pakistan’s interests runs much deeper than can be imagined. Succinctly, India that had no role in the anti Soviet war of the 80s has emerged as a preferred ally of USA. Indian security and intelligence establishments benefit from a substantial presence in Afghanistan and create unrest in Pakistan through diverse armed groups. The irony is that though USA is quick to level allegations against Pakistan over links with militants, they appear least responsive to complaints against what India does.

Obama, during the election campaign won the hearts of the Muslims in USA by raising the Kashmir issue. However, after assuming office and under pressure from India, he has given no indications of addressing the issue.

On the question of cooperation with India in Afghanistan, USA chooses to completely ignore the historical perspectives and the fact that all Indo-Pakistan issues are linked to Kashmir. While India continues to stage manage a battle on Pakistan’s reverse front as a tit for tat on Kashmir, USA remains adamant that India and Pakistan have a common enemy and must cooperate. The message is clear. Succumb or we make a lesson out of you.

For Pakistan, a national reconciliation could begin through consensus on immediate security issues including militancy, Pakistan’s role as an ally of USA and economic hedging. Restoration of the post 2 November Judiciary is a good omen and other positive developments must lead on from here. The government of Pakistan must draw its strength from the people. After all,

“National Power rises from a relatively stable foundation of geography, through different gradations of instability to its peak in the fleeting elements of national character and morale”

Hans Joachim Morgenthau

Pakistanis from all across the spectrum need to rise to the challenge. It is indeed the time to eat grass.

CONSTITUTIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION ALONE CAN SAVE PAKISTAN

By Usman Khalid

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the celebrated tradition of Kangaroo Courts, gave a judgment on 25 February disqualifying former Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif, and Mian Shahbaz Sharif, the sitting Chief Minister of the Punjab, from contesting elections or holding a political office. In a press conference held by Sharif brothers the same day, it was revealed that President Asif Zardari had offered Mian Shahbaz Sharif a deal – a decision in their favour in the case to disqualify the Sharif Brothers in exchange for help in amending the Constitution to give extension to Chief Justice A.H.Dogar. It may be kept in view that Justice Dogar was the selection of Benazir as replacement for CJ Iftikhar Chaudhri. Justice Dogar took a fresh oath of office on the PCO on November 3, 2008, by which General Musharraf had dismissed the sitting Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhri and sixty other judges of the Supreme and High Courts.  Although the President Zardari’s Office denied the deal offer, there is other evidence how desperately he wants to extend the tenure of Chief Justice Dogar. The extension of his tenure was a part of the package of 85 or so constitutional amendments drafted by his personal lawyers Farook Naek who is now the Minister of Law.

That the politics of Pakistan has returned to the rut of familiar grooves so soon after nine years of Musharraf rule is indeed shocking. Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, had been consigned to political oblivion by similar dubious laws and procedures. After 11 years out of office and Asif Zardari himself having been incarcerated for eight years, the PPP appears to have learnt nothing. Politics continues to have no purpose except to come to power and stay in power by hook or crook. The essential part of securing monopoly over power is to ‘destroy the opposition’. Murder (preferably judicial) is still the preferred weapon of politicians. If that is not possible, dragging opponents into courts is the next best weapon. Asif Zardari is a past master at both having learnt the tricks of the trade at the receiving end. He is accused of the unsolved murder of his brother in law – Mir Murtaza Bhutto – and is the chief beneficiary of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Because of that and his reputation of corruption as Mr 10 percent, he is unacceptable even to the PPP rank and file as the inheritor of the Bhutto mantle. His unsavoury moral reputation makes him a figure of contempt all over the country particularly in the province of Sindh from which hails. His leaning towards India and his bypassing the institutions of the state to make private deals with crime syndicates inside the country and foreign governments and agencies, makes him an outlaw and the most reviled leader of any country in the world.

Democracy was restored in Pakistan only a year ago after nine years of Musharraf rule. The people are ready to give the politician time and a lot of space. But his past makes him paranoid. When a ruler does not have legal, political or moral legitimacy, he depends on the coercive power of the state (police and the military) and support of a compliant judiciary to stay in power. Unlike Musharraf, Asif Zardari has legal and political legitimacy. He is not politically or personally not vulnerable but he has become vulnerable on moral grounds having gone back on written promises made to political allies to restore Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhri. His restoration has become the cause celebre enjoying around 80% public support. The Lawyers’ Movement is planning a march on the capital and sit-in in to press their demand. Since the PML (N) is the ruling party in the Punjab and it has decided to take part in the march and the sit-in, President Asif Zardari was afraid that the combination might force his hand. He decided to use the ‘Dogar Court’ to oust the Sharif’s from politics and put the fear of God in the faint hers of the PML (N) and install a PPP led coalition in the Punjab. It is high-risk game that may well result in the ouster of President Zardari.

The Prime Minister – Yousaf Raza Gilani – has kept himself aloof from the Zardari machinations. He kept his channel of communication open with Sharif brother and he called the Punjab Chief Minister to tell him that he had no role in his disqualification and that he considers the fallout from it to be harmful to the country. He has courted the danger of being asked to resign. He must resist such a call and ask to be dismissed under Article 58 (2) b of the Constitution instead. That would be fitting revenge for the humiliation of being by passed by the ministers as well as bureaucrats who get orders direct from the President. He is still the Chief Executive who enjoys the confidence of the House. If he stood firm and asserted himself in refusing to undermine the largest party in the Punjab Assembly, he would do a yeoman service even to his own party by insisting publicly on the constitutional process being followed in ‘letter and spirit’. A coalition of the PML (N) and the PML (Q) can defeat the machinations of the Governor Salman Taseer – the one person hated even more than Asif Zardari. If that is not be possible because of the obsessions of the Chaudhries of Gujrat, a forward block of PML (Q) could form a coalition with PML (N). But Zardari and Salman Taseer are playing a high stake game; they know they could be ousted if they lost. It would be foolish to consider that their bag of tricks contains only the Chaudhries.

In  ‘Capital Talk’ programme of Geo TV, Mr Akram Sheikh, a lawyer who argued the case against disqualification of Sharif brother, said, “ The decision of the Supreme Court (on disqualification) is like a suicide attack on democracy like the PCO of November 3, 2007 was a suicide attack on the judiciary”. I believe that to be true.  Musharraf did succeed in getting himself elected as the President for five years while still in uniform with the help of the ‘Dogar Court’ but he lasted only five months. A popularly elected party could not mortgage its political future to the corpse of a defeated dictator. The promulgation of the PCO on November 3 did turn out to be suicide attack that led his political death. The Governors rule in the Punjab may also not succeed in securing a coalition of the PPP with the PML (Q). Even if it did, the irate electors would continue sporadic violence. The Afghan war has spead to NWFP and Baluchistan already; it may now spread even to the Punjab where the PPP may replace the ANP as the target.  Clearly, there are still many options open to the PPP to survive and even flourish. But President Zardari has dug his heels on the issue of restoration of the Chief Justice. His resolve to persist would continue to close all the good options. In the end, the President and the Governor of Punjab would be confined to their official residence where they might barricade themselves against the public. Who will they ask to be released from their incarceration? The Police? It always becomes scarce on the ground when the going gets tough for the politicians they are posted to protect. The Army? Reviled so much for so long by the politicians, it is not eager to face the wrath of the people to save some political skins.  The Army would also advise Asif Zardari to do the right thing and restore the Chief Justice.

The Army Chiefs have carried out coup d’etat in Pakistan often in response to the political government facing insurrection. But a coup is unlawful – it is ‘high treason’ under Article 6 of the Constitution. Once they commit ‘high treason’ they get personally on the wrong side of the law. They compound their crime by further unlawful actions like suspending or even abrogating the Constitution. They need ‘pliant judges’ to invoke the ‘doctrine of necessity’ to provide a measure of legitimacy to their rule. But such legitimacy is often conditional and restricted in time. The majority of the political class, out of favour for long, are eager to do the bidding of the Army Chief. He gets welcome as the head of a party of political orphans. As he pin his colours to its mast, the party becomes spectacularly popular and wins the elections. The military dictator gets electoral legitimacy. He becomes convinced of his ‘Midas touch’. He becomes convinced of his everlasting popularity and his political acumen. When his party secures majority with or without other coalition partners, it always gives indemnity to all the actions of the dictator and validates all the laws enacted during the earlier purely military rule. That has been the pattern followed by every military dictator – Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. Now that pattern is broken.

Every thing that a military dictator does follows from his first crime – overthrowing a legitimate government. He continues in power by the acquiescence of the high judiciary and the availability of thousands of louts in the political class eager to enjoy political power riding on his back. It has become hard for a military dictator to replicate the pattern because of the wide viewer ship of TV – both national and international. The free media keeps the politicians under the spotlight and puts pressure on them, in fact on all holders of power and authority, (particularly the judiciary) to act in accordance with law and to meet the demands of good governance and the rights of the people. The Lawyers’ Movement for the restoration Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhri is the manifestation the public pressure on all politicians and public servants to act in accordance with law.

When a real criminal enters high office as Chief Executive or the Head of State, his situation is no different to that of the military dictator. He also needs a pliant judiciary and the service and support of the drop-outs, who constitute much of the political class. Asif Zardari is the first such politician to entered high office with many skeletons in his cupboard. He fears the Lawyers’ Movement and rising public support is his worst nightmare. He thinks if the judges can over-rule him, they would be the rulers not him. He is right. That is precisely what the rule of law is about: judges being able to overrule an official, however high, when he does not conform to law or acts against public interest. On the other hand, there is no way the present crisis is going to be resolved without Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhri being restored. At this moment, however, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and the Chaudhries of Gujrat can save the political system. If the Governor rule is ended in the Punjab and a new coalition formed within a week that excludes the PPP, the crisis may be resolved. However, if neither of them rises to the occasion, military intervention would remain the only viable good option.

This time, the Army Chief does not have to be on the wrong side of the law. He can act lawfully if he responded to the call by the Supreme Court made by a ‘seven judge bench’ on November 3, 2007, to come to its assistance. Since General Musharraf was the President as well as the COAS at the time, the Army was constrained in responding to that call. Now under the new Army Chief, the Army can respond as an institution, revoke the PCO, and restore the legitimate judges. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is still the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the order by the seven-judge Supreme Court bench presided buy him is a valid judgement. The action by the military to restore the judges would have several benefits over a political compromise, which is the maximum one can hope under the present circumstances.

1. The military would be acting lawfully in assisting the Supreme Court and act under its direction.

2. It would raise the prestige of the Army in doing the right and lawful thing and not taking over power of the state into its hands.

3. It would allow the legally dubious NRO to be revoked and allow action against criminals who have not just escaped punishment but have come to occupy high offices of state.

4. It would allow the review of the 17^th Amendment not from party political point of view but from the standpoint of national interests and good governance.

The situation is too fluid to make any predictions. But the fact remains that it is not enough in the national interest that the PML (N) led coalition is restored in the Punjab. It is vital that all the four objectives listed above are achieved. That would require the Army to exert its influence – this time not to capture power but to restore constitutional rule.

The writer was a Brigadier in the Pakistan Army, now the Director London Institute of South Asia

MQM SCHEME FOR BREAK-UP OF PAKISTAN

By Usman Khalid

The MQM as well as the AZ –PPP are playing poker with all their cards on the table. Their moves are not hard to anticipate and frustrate

Never in the history of any country, its government has so consistently acted against the national interest as the Zardari Administration. He presides over a coalition comprising political parties that oppose Pakistan. Under his leadership, the PPP has also become an anti-Pakistan Party that works for the Indian agenda  – more eagerly on points on which India and the USA agree. The break-up of Pakistan has been the agenda of India and America during the Bush era. President Obama has yet to show his hand but it is unlikely that he would change that objective; he is more likely to use smart power to achieve his objective, which is the preferred method of India any way. Besides India has experience of 1971 for breaking up Pakistan. In 1971, India had Soviet support for its plans, now it has US support. The Scheme has three parts:

1. The first part of the Indo-US scheme was to install a government in Pakistan that does not care about national interests. That has been successfully accomplished; all the ruling parties are anti-Pakistan. Their popularity rating has sunk to 12 per cent and they do know why? But they do not care; they still have long enough time – four years – to accomplish the break-up of Pakistan.

2. The second part is to make ‘provincial autonomy’ the focal point of politics. Since the experience of 1971 is fresh in the minds of the people, no province is ready to repeat the mistake. But India has other cards to play. It has a ‘Trojan Horse’ in the politics of Pakistan in the shape of the MQM representing refugees from India. They do know what happened to their counter-parts in East Pakistan (Bihari Muslims) after it seceded; they became stateless. The fate of Mohajir in Pakistan would be the same if politics in the provinces were organised on ethnic lines; they would become stateless. Yet, they have volunteered to front the political campaign for the break-up of Pakistan. Why? Because they have to obey those who fund and direct them. It was Sheikh Mujib who fronted the Indian campaign in 1971; it is Altaf Hussain in 2009.

3. The third part of Indo-US scheme is that the armed forces should be discredited and demonised. That is not difficult because the wounds inflicted by ‘General’ Musharraf on Pakistan are still raw. He is the one who acquiesced to Indo-US diktat on every issue of national importance. He deceived the people and acted dishonourably so frequently that it is hard for his successors to resurrect the image of the armed forces. The Army operations against the ‘Islamists’ in Swat and FATA are controversial both in objectives as well as conduct. The Army has been found to be unable to defend itself – physically and in public perception. The biggest success of the Indo-US strategy has been to set the Islamists – who had been the nemesis of the secular forces – on Pakistan instead.

There is confusion in Pakistan of the same kind as in 1971. It was public knowledge that Sheikh Mujib was an Indian agent and would act on India’s directions, but the political class looked at him with admiration for his ‘courage’ to establish contact with the ‘enemy’ and secure its support. Today Altaf Hussain is held in similar awe for having enlisted India and America in his support. His other anti-Pakistan coalition partners would give their eyeteeth for the spell he casts over his Shia-Muhajir constituents. The patriotic Pakistanis – despite being in overwhelming majority – are stricken by dumbness as they were in 1971. Thy do not even have the courage to criticise the MQM draft of constitutional amendment.

There are two important arguments that need to be articulated by the patriotic press and the politicians:

1. Provincial autonomy is neither a universal doctrine nor an Islamic one. It is rooted in the history of the British Empire in India that annexed different territories at different times on different terms. The essential feature of their ‘conquests’ – whether the territory was annexed or remained under ‘princely rule’ – was that the land remained under the ownership of the province or the state; it was the people who became the ‘subjects of the crown’. Even today, all the ‘state land’ is the property of the province. From that it followed that taxes on land and property and rules for the sale and transfer of land and property be made by the province/state. But the taxes on people (their income and their production) were the exclusive right of the federal government, which was responsible for every aspect of peoples’ life – their health, education, security and welfare. That division of rights and responsibilities is still sound in principle as well as practice. Provincial autonomy is fair and good if the land revenue and taxes on minerals – including oil and gas – are collected exclusively by the provincial governments and used for development of infrastructure, irrigation, and maintenance of law and order. The responsibility for health and education should be returned to the federal government as it is the one responsible for the security and welfare of the people and collects taxes on peoples’ income and production.
2. A powerful country is one where the society is cohesive and the people are free. Since 98% of Pakistanis are Muslims, the cohesion among the people is remarkable.  The people are free to move inside the country and for work overseas. The Pakistanis are institutionally fee and Pakistan is a strong country. Imagine the situation if a Kashmiri or a Pathan required a work permit to work in the Punjab or Sindh. Would it serve the interest of any province? Balochistan is a province with Pashtun, the Baloch and non-Baloch in almost equal numbers. Should Balochistan be split into three provinces? What would be result of such a split? Mass migrations, more strife and even more poverty and destitution! There are more Pathans in Karachi than in Peshawar. There are more Baloch in Sindh and Punjab than in Balochistan. The people have benefited from such migration. Had that not been the case they would not have moved. To the extent that provincial autonomy places restrictions of freedom of people to move, it is regressive. Indirect restrictions like sale of state land only to locals are the best means by which fears of change in demographic balance are addressed. That is the case at present and this can continue.

That the provinces of Pakistan are not defined by or restricted to any ethnic group is the strength of Pakistan. It is only the enemies of Pakistan who want to define the provinces of Pakistan in ethnic terms. That is why it is the prime enemy of the state of Pakistan, whose leaders decried the Two Nation Theory and the Founder of Pakistan in Delhi – the MQM – who is the mouthpiece of the Indian agenda. The political class is not going to criticise the MQM and its nefarious activities. It is partly because of fear of being gunned down by this mafia and partly because the other political parties not yet organised fully as a mafia consider the MQM as a their model. The direction in which Asif Zardari is moving the PP supports that view. The PPP was a populist political party under the leadership of Late Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto. It is now being transformed into a Zardari mafia. A mafia is an organisation in which strict obedience of the ‘boss’ is the only law. The way the AZ-PPP has switched from supporting the restoration of the judges sacked by General Musharraf to supporting the judges that took oath under Musharraf’s PCO on 3 November 2007, shows that it is now Zardari Mafia like the MQM is Altaf Mafia.

The people of Pakistan are wide-awake through the Indo-US sponsored slaughter in their country. The US support notwithstanding, the ANP has been wiped clean out of NWFP and Balochistan. The MQM is nervous. Its leaders sitting in London and holding ministerial office in Islamabad are meeting American officials offering them their services independently of Asif Zardari. The situation of AZ is really difficult. His coalition partners – the ANP and the MQM – have closer relations with India and the USA. They can start and sustain a civil war to break up Pakistan. All Asif Zardari can offer – if provide the tools – is to use his army to crush the militants in Swat and FATA who have in any case been unleashed on Pakistan under a clandestine Indo-US operation. But he India has a use for him. The third part of the Indo-US scheme for Pakistan requires the armed forces to be an object of derision rather than awe, of contempt rather than fear. That can only be accomplished by wanton use of air power in Swat and FATA as is being insisted upon by the USA, and by Asif Zardari with diligent support of his ‘tried and tested accomplices’ called advisors to the Prime Minister.

The people are wide-awake but they have little hope. The entire political class and the system on which they feed and thrive are ready to collapse. It may well be the Indo-US scheme to break up Pakistan that overcomes their disinclination to mass action. Musharraf ended the prospect of the armed forces acting as an institution to save the country from its political class. Zardari is putting the final nails into the coffin of the political class. The lawyers, the ex-servicemen and other segments of the civil society may yet unite to replace the political class but that does not appear likely. The challenge is too big and the self-imposed restrictions on their objectives and actions are a heavy constraint. May be the MQM draft of amendments to the constitution makes the institutions of the civil society take up the challenge that the PML(N) and other like minded parties are unable or unwilling to. It is hard to make predictions. But the MQM as well as the AZ –PPP are playing poker with all their cards on the table. Their moves are not hard to anticipate and frustrate. ++

The writer is retired Brigadier of the Pakistan Army who is Director of the London Institute of South Asia (LISA)

OBAMA’S NEW AMERICAN ERA: PAKISTAN’S POLICY OPTIONS

Rabia Akhtar

The question that needs to be raised post the 20 January inauguration of the new US administration is not how Obama will deal with Pakistan but rather how Pakistan should revise its foreign policy agenda with this transition in US government and reject eight gruesome years of US coercive diplomacy. The change to achieve regional security and stability rests with Pakistan taking a wiser course of action and reversing the chips for once.

Obama has a foreign policy agenda to pursue in which the GWOT will see a clear shift of focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, with a promise of thinning of troops from Iraq to concentration of more forces in Afghanistan. Not because Iraq is in the settling phase, far from it, but because the projected face of global terrorism suggests that Al Qaeda’s center has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan onto Pakistan, with the allegiance of the Taliban. It seems like that the US is looking for a scapegoat in Afghanistan and in this case Pakistan fits the bill. With continuous reports on Pakistan being at the crossroads of terrorism and a nuclear threat, pressure is being generated whereby it is expected that Pakistan should adopt an apologist stance instead of a more realistic one against the US policies in the region.

What Pakistan at this moment can do, is to reflect on the US‘ amoral policies and pressurize the new US Obama administration to revise its failing strategy in Afghanistan and show them the mirror of history. This war of eight years has proven to be very costly for the US leading it to the brink of moral and financial bankruptcy. Pakistan however faces a twin dilemma – with India ready to fill the US shoes in case a withdrawal becomes imminent in coming years, Pakistan needs to think long and hard as to how can it cash in on the ‘alliance’ it has sacrificed part of its sovereignty for and build its credibility with the international community so that in case of US withdrawal, it is trusted to take the lead in helping Afghanistan deal with terrorism through networking of forces across the Durand Line.

Pakistan has various policy options which it should pursue now that the new US administration is in power. What Pakistan needs to understand is that it is strategically being encircled into ‘accepting’ that it has become the hub of terrorism, a safe haven for Al Qaeda, a nuclear terrorist threat for the rest of the world, a centre of extremist Islamist militancy, a failing state with fragile democracy, incapable of making peace with its neighbor and a disaster in the making. Therefore, officially distancing itself from these ‘allegations’ and raising a public consensus on the amorality of this war waged on Pakistan will help set the pace for the new Pakistan-US foreign policy agenda for the first term of Obama’s administration.

Second, despite the new US foreign policy strategy for Afghanistan, an additional 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are not going to help curb the resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban. The US must understand that there is no military solution to ideology and it cannot be fought through weapons. In this regard, Pakistan must emphasize the lack of understanding that is undermining the morals of humanity and help bridge the gap through raising dialogue and negotiating peace on terms acceptable to all parties in the conflict.

In order for this to happen, Pakistan must pressurize the new US administration for setting a time line for ultimate withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and promising a peaceful transition of power to Afghanistan truly representative of the factions representing various parties. President Karzai’s statement in this regard of taking more control of US operations inside Afghanistan is a step in the right direction which should be supported by Pakistan. A timeline for US withdrawal is also crucial for Pakistan’s long term strategy vis-a-vis Afghanistan and India for it will help chalk out its role in the region as a lead player in enhancing strategic stability in the region.

Some right noises have already been made by Pakistan post-Obama inauguration through officially signaling a halting of drone attacks inside Pakistan, respecting its sovereignty and reviewing its policy options if the new US administration’s policies are not positive towards Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan should accept a ‘tripling of non-military aid’ offer by the US on the condition of de-linking aid from its ‘performance’ in GWOT and dropping the rhetoric on ‘do more’ because over the past eight years, Pakistanis have lost more lives from the US-waged war on terrorism inside Pakistan’s territory than the 9/11 victims combined. This should be enough proof of its commitment to GWOT as a frontline state and requires no apology where ‘performance’ is concerned. If a change is warranted, Pakistan must take the lead.

Chairperson, Department of Defense and Diplomatic Studies, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

HOW THE INDO PAK CONFLICT WILL BE FOUGHT IN AFGHANISTAN

A. H. Amin

ORIGINAL MAP DRAWN ABSOLUTE FREE HAND BY A.H AMIN

The Indo Pak conflict is being fought in Afghanistan since 1992.Initial the Hizb e Islami of Hekmatyar was the Pakistani proxy.Later on the Taliban were replaced as the Pakistani proxy and the Northern Alliance as the Indian-Russian-Iranian proxy. After 2001 the Northern Alliance became a US proxy.

It appears now that the USA/NAT0 cannot fight the Afghan war alone. Any US withdrawal would lead to a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan which is seen as not suitable in USA,India,Russia,Iran and even China’s interest.

The Indians have made a very serious offer of one corps HQ, four divisions, and 30 RR Battalions for Afghanistan, to the Americans, with Lt. Gen Bikram Singh as force commander (HQ III or XXI Corps, 4, 6, 23, and 36 Divs).

Similarly the Russians have motorised forces available for possible deployment in North Afghanistan in case the USA decides to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The simple rationale of the conflict is the fact that a direct Indo Pak war because of the nuclear deterrent is no longer possible. Afghanistan is idle for Indians in order to wage a Bangladesh like war with the Indian proxies in Pakistan being the Baloch and the anti Pakistan Pashtun tribal elements.

Seen in this context the future war which is already ongoing between India and Pakistan will be fought in the backwaters.

A Hypothetical Deployment of Indian troops in Afghanistan

Possible Indian Deployment after US Withdrawl

THE NATURE OF INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL COERCION OF PAKISTAN

PAKISTAN’S PRESENT AND FUTURE WAR

India has carried out a revaluation of its strategic options with Pakistan. Coming years will witness an ‘All-out Strategy of Coercion’ effectively applied by Israel in the Middle East. India’s biggest advantage of seeking conceptual and technical military cooperation with Israel lies in the fact that its technology is largely indigenous and facilitates material transfer with no end user problems. Pakistan is already engaged in a War of Attrition and the futures will be a serious test of its strategy of defiance and ability to ride out the crises as a cohesive nation state.

India’s quest for security and response to perceived external threats is shaped and complicated by her past. India desires to exist as a great power with a capability to bully its neighbours to vassal states. Pakistan has been the major impediment towards this quest of great power status. Vary of the freedom struggle in Kashmir, an exaggerated threat of Islamic militants and fear of another Two Nation Theory from within; Indian strategists have been toying with the idea of using a small but lethal rapid reaction force for a limited duration inside Pakistan. However, India cannot accomplish what it has failed to do for the past six decades, unless the breeze blows in its favour. India feels it is time to test her new options.

Post 9/11, India sees an opportunity and is acting as a neo realist to minimise the importance of Pakistan through high profile coercion that falls in line with international perceptions. To capitalise this rare opportunity, India is even ready to forego its traditional mantra of keeping great powers out of the region and rather align with them for short term gains. In the final analysis, India wishes to frame a politically discredited, ethnically fragmented, economically fragile and a morally weak Pakistan. This can only happen if the role of armed forces in Pakistan’s policy making is pushed back; Punjab divided and the rallying call of Kashmir addressed for good.

Indian military structure and force goals for the past 10 years are geared towards such a capability with active assistance from Russia, Israel and now USA and UK. Having allied itself closely with Israel, India will now seek a continuous attrition of Pakistan’s politic body through high profile military coercion, control of river waters, diplomatic isolation and covert interference within Pakistan’s fragile areas. Mumbai and any such incidents in future will continue to provide a reason for such intimidation, all in concert with the US and western strategic objectives in the region. The policy is thus underlined by the need that Pakistan must have a very weak intelligence and surveillance capability.

Interestingly, much of the blame for having landed in the box and then be cornered into it must also be shared by the Pakistani establishments of the past decade. Though Pakistan’s declared nuclear capability was meant to deter all types of conflicts and pave way for sustained economic growth; international stature; and a political solution to the Kashmir Crisis, Pakistan through Kargil led India and the world to believe that notwithstanding a nuclear shadow, a limited military conflict in an existing conflict zone was still possible. Kargil and later 9/11 changed international perceptions on an armed freedom struggle in Kashmir as also Pakistan’s relevance to the new form of threat; the Non-State Actors. Seen in the backdrop of 9/11, it was the second effect that finally resulted in disowner ship of the freedom fighters in Kashmir by Pakistan while also resigning the Kashmir question to the impossibility of backdoor diplomacy.

Nuclear capability of Pakistan provides a very small window of opportunity to India to carry out a physical offensive action across the LOC or international border. This action could be a raid in the garb of Hot Pursuit through ground or heliborne troops, precision air strikes with or without stand-off; remote controlled targeting through a guided missile attack, and in worst case, an attempt to seize objectives close to the international border with little military but considerable political significance. India had a fully developed chemical weapon’s programme even before she signed the chemical weapon’s convention as a country not possessing chemical weapon’s but declared its arsenal soon after signing it and is not averse to using quickly diffusing chemical weapons. After 9/11, India has war gamed and fine tuned these concepts as also implemented some in a very limited manner during the escalation on the LOC.

Hot Pursuit, as the name suggests is only possible in an already hot theatre like LOC. These are launched through ground troops or heliborne forces. Such an option has little probability because of the bilateral ceasefire. However, such an option however remote cannot be ruled out.

With active assistance of Israel, some Indian aircrafts have acquired a beyond visual range, precision stand-off capability, something witnessed during the Kargil conflict. India may use her air force remaining inside her own territory and launch laser guided munitions diagonally inside Pakistan. However, the selected targets should be within 20 KMs of the LOC or international border.

Precision strikes imply that Indian aircrafts will physically violate Pakistan’s airspace and launch precision surgical strikes against selected targets from a very high altitude, or conventional bombing runs, or use of heliborne troops. In such a situation, these aircrafts will be vulnerable to Pakistani air defence and PAF.

In the Cold Start Strategy, India positions forces with offensive capabilities in military garrisons close to the international border, equipped, trained and tasked to capture some nodal points along the international border, before the Pakistani forces can react. India may not succeed in such an operation without a massive air cover. In Indian strategic calculus, the timing and lightening speed of such operations will solicit immense international pressure on Pakistan so as to curtail Pakistan’s conventional and nuclear response.

Notwithstanding such options hinging on military and diplomatic brinkmanship, India will benefit from the use of Israeli armed and surveillance drones operated by Israeli crews from inside India. Historical precedence for such cooperation already exists.

The whole body of war fighting reasoning in such limited conflicts warrants a ‘level of rationality’ and comprehension of a common strategic language between the belligerents. This is technically impossible. Different actors would draw varying conclusions from an animated Graduated Escalation Ladder (GEL) always vulnerable to a Fire Break Point that could result in uncontrolled conventional and nuclear escalation. It is therefore most important that the decision to graduate a conflict rest solely with the political leaders of the country, wherein a common strategic parlance could be evolved with more ease and international community enforce a carrot and stick syndrome over Pakistani leaders.

Taking a leaf from Israeli opaqueness in nuclear doctrine, India over time has applied a conceptual innovation in her nuclear strategy. The Indian revision in the nuclear doctrine implies the ambiguity in the “no first use clause” through a declared no first use and pre-emptive retaliation to create a perception that she is making a coercive transaction from doctrine of ‘Limited Conventional War’ to an opaque level of conflict in which the nuclear weapons remain in a very high state of alert. The implication is that India may flirt with the concept of a limited strategic coercion in the shadow of a very high non degradable nuclear alert beyond Pakistan’s capability to neutralise. It is also my opinion that as of now, after having signed the Nuclear Deal with USA, India benefits from an extended US Nuclear Umbrella, strategic and diplomatic support.

There are reliable reports from Afghanistan that Indian contractors are busy building billets and accommodation in Kabul and Baghram to station two Indian divisions groups in the area. At the same time, bids have been invited by the US Corps of Engineers to construct a divisional size cantonment in Kandhar. Hypothetically, troops in the garb of protection for Indian investments will actually seal off Afghanistan’s Pashtun Regions from the North. Then the US, NATO and Indian troops will go for an all out counter insurgency operation in the cordoned Pashtun areas. Effects of spillover to Pakistan will be pronounced and Durand Line would become a figment of imagination. Premised on the romantic notion of Pashtun Nationalism, the doors to Pakhtunkhwa would be opened. USA would then select the shortest route to Afghanistan through the Arabian Sea and Balochistan.

What ever the concept, scope and objective of such limited escalations, India with its new found allies has decided to maintain a constant vigil and coercion of Pakistan over a prolonged period of time but well below a Fire Break Point. The obvious targets in tandem with its allies will be addressed through diverse instruments like control of rivers, economics, diplomacy, international pressure, internal law and order, military intimidation and even insurgency. A trillion dollar question is; will USA be ready to occupy Balochistan for a secure supply corridor?

The war has already begun. The question is. When did it begin?

Brigadier Samson Simon Sharaf is a retired officer of Pakistan Army

E mail: nicco1988@hotmail.com

CRISIS CELL-GEONEWS. 29 DEC 2008 PART II

CRISIS CELL-GEONEWS. 29 DEC 2008 PART I

This is my first review on TV. The subject is escalation around Pakistan.

FOURTH INDO-PAKISTAN WAR STARTED ON 13-12-08

By Usman Khalid

London, December 14. As I was preparing to go to bed last night, Geo TV was breaking news that Indian aircraft had violated the air space of Pakistan at two points – in Lahore sector and in Azad Kashmir. Clearly, India was following in the footsteps of its strategic partner – the USA – and expected no resistance from Pakistan as the target was the common enemy (the terrorists) as in FATA and the NWFP. India must have been peeved by the unfriendly scrambling of the aircraft by the Pakistan Air Force that led to the Indian mission having to be aborted. India would press upon President Zardari directly and through friends – the USA and UK – to give the same facilities to the Indian Air Force as given to the USA to strike ‘terrorists’ inside Pakistan. Prime Minster Gordon Brown is visiting Pakistan today and would no doubt give assurances to President Asif Zardari that NATO led ISAF would not strike targets inside Pakistan. That helps. The safe passage to NATO supplies from Karachi Port to Afghanistan has already been disrupted. The British perhaps do remember what happened to the expeditions they sent into Afghanistan from India. No one made it back alive. India remembers that too but it thinks it is much cleverer than the British, the Soviet Union or the Americans and would emerge victorious.  

The USA and UK are willing to let India try and are willing to provide India full diplomatic support at the UN and elsewhere. America is ready to provide more; it is understood to have promised air support from its bases in Afghanistan and its aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. The diplomatic moves to demonise and isolate Pakistan are already underway. A British minister declared in the Parliament last year that HM Government supports the Indian stand on Jammu and Kashmir. Jang Daily published from London carried the news but there was no public outcry. With the military led Musharraf Government being willing to consider solution other than a ‘UN supervised plebiscite’, the public has come to expect its leaders not to safeguard the national interests and to be eager to get into bed with the enemy. Now the UN Sanctions Committee has passed a resolution to ban Jamaat ud Daawa as a terrorist organisation, a legal handle has been provided to India and the US to invade Pakistan. Remember the UNSC passed a resolution for Iraq to let the UN Inspectors in to complete their inspection to confirm there were no WMD in Iraq, and promised not invade Iraq if it did. Iraq did allow the UN Inspectors to complete their inspection but the USA still invaded. The spectacular briefing to the UN Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell, which has since been discredited as totally false, was used by the US as excuse insisting that Iraq was not co-operating with the UN Inspectors.  

Just as the British declaration of support to Indian stand on Kashmir was ignored by Pakistan, Zardari administration is displaying breathtaking naivety (more probably treachery) in joining India to say that the UN Sanctions help Pakistan fight the scourge of terrorism. No, Sir! This resolution provides an excuse to invade Pakistan and mobilise international support for it. All that India needs to do is to keep saying that the action of Pakistan is an ‘eyewash’. Pakistan’s friends would be silenced.  Many countries will join India to ask Pakistan to ‘do more’. I do not believe that India would carry out air strikes inside Pakistan until President Obama enters upon his office. But then it might, in order to force the hand of the new President. In either case, India would rely on the precedent set by the USA in North Pakistan and carry out air strikes to ‘help’ Zardari against ‘terrorists’ in Kashmir and the South. It is unlikely that Asif Zardari would survive dragging his feet that makes response to Indian strikes tardy. But his ouster would be no skin off the Indo-US nose. Without a ‘legitimate’ government in Pakistan, both would feel free to invade Pakistan.  

The narrative for war on Pakistan written by Indo-US planners appears to have no holes. But the holes are really big if the military of Pakistan is able to act boldly and sometimes even pre-emptively. In the first Indo-Pakistan War of 1948-49, forty percent of Jammu and Kashmir was captured by the people aided by tribal lashkars and the Northern Scouts well before the Pakistan Army went into Kashmir. That area is still held by Pakistan. In 1965, Pakistan was so eager to keep the war confined to Jammu and Kashmir that it did not deploy its troops into battle positions on the rest of the border ostensibly and ridiculously to ‘avoid provoking’ an all out war. The same mistake was made in the Kargil War of 1991. We always said that the defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan and yet we did not go into Kashmir in 1971 when India invaded East Pakistan. Pakistanis always fought well and would do even better in the next war but the mistakes of strategy cannot be overcome by good tactics or fighting spirit of the troops. The first principle is to prepare for all eventualities particularly the most dangerous one. We say that our nuclear doctrine is ‘first strike’ and that a ‘nuclear war’ is the most dangerous eventuality. We must therefore prepare for that worst eventuality – calmly and with sobriety. If we didn’t, the enemy would know. And the worst eventuality would catch us unprepared.  

On the other end of the spectrum is the asymmetrical war in which Pakistan has been on the wrong side of the populace. Pakistan should return to the same side as the people of the country in that war. That war should not be fought in FATA or even Afghanistan; it should be fought in Kashmir. If the USA and India want to rebuild Afghanistan’s infrastructure as they say, Pakistan, China and Iran should welcome that and offer every assistance so that peace returns and ISAF troop levels can be scaled down. The Afghan people should be able to become friends with those who helped them fight the Soviet occupation. However, there are real and genuine doubts in Pakistan about the real intentions of India or America. But we should not forget that neither has a safe route into Afghanistan. Their presence in Afghanistan is a guarantee of their good behaviour. They are so vulnerable to being completely wiped out like the British during the Afghan Wars that it is hard to exaggerate the threat they face. But Pakistan is now engaged in a wrong war; they are fighting the Afghan resistance. Pakistan should make a strategic withdrawal from Afghanistan immediately. It should open the border with Afghanistan and let the people on both sides of the Durand Line figure things out. Pakistan needs tribal lashkars once again and not only in Kashmir.   

Fortunately, the security situation is outside the control of President Asif Zardari. He can hurt Pakistan’s economy, which he is doing. Pakistan’s formal economy is close to a meltdown and it would be no bad thing if the ‘controls’ that provide opportunities to the political class to rob and steal disappear. India has started the fourth Indo-Pakistan war already. It is a war like no other before it. This is a war that Pakistan alone can win; all others can lose although in different ways.  India is cautiously climbing the escalation ladder in the hope that it can avoid an all out nuclear war. It is India’s need to escalate with caution that guarantees freedom of action to those fighting asymmetrical war against India in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has to remain demonstrably prepared for the worst thus reinforcing the freedom of action to the resistance in Jammu and Kashmir. There will indeed be skirmishes between India and Pakistan; the sound of the weak knees of the rulers knocking would be loud for all to hear. There is no need to remove this pathetic lot. Let them die of fear – fear of India, fear of America, fear of the ‘militants’, fear of the people who elected them, fear of the armed forces, fear of the lawyers. Let them and their masters die a death by a thousands cuts.

 The writer is the Director of London Institute of South Asia